________________
374
375
376
149
hint is available in any canonical texts other than the Bhagavati, let us collect the relevant Bhagavati passages that fall in the field of ethical conduct which likely hide a key to solving this problem. I.8.68 (cf. D-la) which belongs to the third canonical stage preserves the concept as early as the age of the Acara I. Here an archer, who has just shot an arrow which kills an animal, then, has his head cut off by another man. The text says that the archer is touched by the dead animal's vaira, and that the slaughterer of the archer is touched by the dead archer's vaira. It corroborates this account by way of the dictum 'kajjamane kade samdhijjamane samdhie nivvattijjamane nivvattie nisirijjamane nisit the' (doing done, aiming aimed, preparing prepared, throwing thrown).
VII.6.333 (cf. D-2b-1), which belongs to the second canonical stage, conveys the idea that if a monk has set out from his abode to meet his elder (who is in another locality) with a view to performing alocana-pratikramana, he is regarded as loyal even if an accidental circumstance should prevent him from fulfilling his intended duty. The text supports this by way of the dogma 'chijjamane chinne pakkhippamane pakkhitte dajjhamane daddhe' and 'ukkhippamane ukkhitte pakkhippamane pakkhitte rajjamane ratte'. In VI.7.336 (cf. D-2b-4) which belongs to the third canonical stage, the Jaina elders win debates with heretics on some ethical problems by way of 'dijjamane dinne padiggahejjamane padiggahie nisirijjamane nissatthe' and 'gamamane gae vitikkamijjamane vitikkante rayagiham nagaram sampaviukame sampatte".
It is the position of the Acara I - Sutrakṛta I that the vaira invariably catches hold of a himsaka who slaughters a living being with an intention to kill. And it is also their position that an accidental himsa taking place in the absence of intention as such is free from guilt. It is inducible from these premises that as long as an action is accompanied by intention, whether good or bad, it can be judged as sinless or sinful regardless of the completion or incompletion of an action. (We should also keep in mind that all actions were considered to be evil in those days.) The absence of intention in action does not bring out any ethical issue. Hence the nature of the intention of an action alone can determine whether a certain action in progress or completed is sinful or otherwise. This easily leads one to formulate a thesis that the consequence of any volitional action which is in progress equals that of the completed action. And it is likely that 'kajjamane kade' was formulated by MV in such a purely ethical context.
In the light of this, the contents expressed in the Bhagavati passages cited above somehow make sense. In IX.33.385, Jamali understands MV's ethical dictum as such in the purely theoretical context of kriya that any action in progress cannot be logically and grammatically equated with the completed action. Jamali is also absolutely right in maintaining his anti-djctum in the context of theory of kriya, and thus he was supported by some of his followers.
For Private & Personal Use Only
Jain Education International
www.jainelibrary.org
